Hall, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 265 (02 December 2025) [2025] PBRA 265

PBRA
Hall, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 265 (02 December 2025)
[2025] PBRA 265 · 2025-10-26
[1]This is an application by Hall (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 26 October 2025 not to direct release.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024) (the Parole Board Rules) provides that applications for reconsideration may be made in eligible cases (as set out in rule 28(2)) either on the basis(a) that the decision contains an error of law,(b) that it is irrational and/or(c) that it is procedurally unfair. This is an eligible case, and the application was made in time.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: · The Oral Hearing Decision (the Decision) · Reconsideration Representations (the Representations) drafted by the Applicant's solicitor and dated 17 November 2025 · The dossier, which currently consists of 313 numbered pages ending with the Decision Request for Reconsideration[4]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are concisely set out. The panel found on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant, while in the community on licence, was involved in an incident in which a 15-year-old girl (V) was approached by a man who asked her for money while threatening her with a knife. The panel found that the Applicant was the man with the knife.[5]This finding was fundamental to the panel's decision not to direct release. The Representations challenge the finding as(1) irrational and(2) flawed by procedural unfairness. Background[6]The Applicant was 35 years old in 2002 when he received a sentence of life imprisonment for offences of robbery and causing grievous bodily harm with intent. His tariff expired in 2006. In 2021 he was released on licence, and recalled 7 months later, having lapsed into substance misuse. In May 2024 he was again released on licence. He was recalled in October 2024 after losing his accommodation for breaching the rules there. He had tested positive for cocaine on two occasions.[7]The Applicant had a lengthy record of convictions for violent and acquisitive offences. The index offence of robbery, and an earlier robbery conviction, involved the use of a knife. The victim of one of them was a 14-year-old foreign student. Current parole review[8]The Applicant is now 58 years old. The Secretary of State for Justice (the Respondent) referred his case to the Parole Board for consideration of a direction for release or, in the alternative, a recommendation for open conditions. The panel heard oral evidence on 5 August 2025. The panel adjourned the case on learning that the Applicant had been arrested for the robbery offence. The panel required further information about that matter. A further hearing took place on 25 September 2025, in the course of which the Applicant's solicitor made, and the panel granted, an application for an adjournment so that police documentation relating to the robbery allegation could be added to the dossier.[9]The final hearing took place on 15 October 2025. The panel consisted of two independent members of the Parole Board. The witnesses were the Prison Offender Manager (POM) and the Community Offender Manager (COM), and a police witness. The Applicant gave evidence. The Applicant was represented throughout by a solicitor, who questioned the witnesses, including the Applicant, and made submissions. Both the POM and the COM gave professional opinions supporting release. Each of them said they would support release even if the panel found as a fact that the Applicant was the man who approached V with a knife. The Relevant Law[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for a progressive move to open conditions. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[11]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules provides the types of decision which are eligible for reconsideration. This is an eligible decision, and an eligible sentence type. Irrationality[12]The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent tribunal on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene in these words:
" if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere"
. The same test applies to a reconsideration panel when determining an application on the basis of irrationality.[13]In R (DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin) a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board hearings in these words at para 116:
"the issue is whether the release decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. "
[14]In R (on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin) Saini J set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law which was "to test the decision maker's ultimate conclusion against the evidence before it and to ask whether the conclusion can (with due deference and with regard to the panel's expertise) be safely justified on the basis of that evidence, particularly in a context where anxious scrutiny needs to be applied)". This test was adopted by a Divisional Court in the case of R (on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice) -v- the Parole Board [2022] EWHC 1282 (Admin).[15]As was made clear by Saini J this is not a different test to the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of and application of the Wednesbury test in Parole hearings as explained in DSD was binding on Saini J.[16]It follows from those principles that in considering an application for reconsideration the reconsideration panel will not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses.[17]Furthermore, while the views of the professional witnesses must be properly considered by a panel deciding on release, the panel is not bound to accept their assessment. The panel must however make clear in its reasons why it is disagreeing with the assessment of the witnesses. Procedural unfairness[18]Procedural unfairness means that there was some procedural impropriety or unfairness resulting in the proceedings being fundamentally flawed and therefore, producing a manifestly unfair, flawed, or unjust result. These issues (which focus on how the decision was made) are entirely separate to the issue of irrationality which focusses on the actual decision.[19]In summary an Applicant seeking to complain of procedural unfairness under rule 28 must satisfy me that either:(a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed in the making of the relevant decision;(b) they were not given a fair hearing;(c) they were not properly informed of the case against them;(d) they were prevented from putting their case properly;(e) the panel did not properly record the reasons for any findings or conclusion; and/or(f) the panel was not impartial.[20]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State[21]The Respondent has chosen not to respond to this application. Discussion[22]The complaint as to the irrationality of the panel's findings of fact essentially amounts to re-opening matters that were argued before the panel as to the weight to be attached to various aspects of the evidence.[23]Where a panel arrives at a conclusion, exercising its judgement based on the evidence before it, and having regard to the fact that the panel members saw and heard the witnesses, including, in this case, the Applicant, it would be inappropriate to direct that the decision be reconsidered unless it is manifestly obvious that there are compelling reasons for interfering with the decision of the panel. The matters raised in the Application do not begin to reach that level.[24]The reconsideration mechanism is not a process whereby the judgement of a panel when assessing risk can be lightly interfered with. Nor is it a mechanism where I should be expected to substitute my view of the facts for that found by the panel, unless, of course, it is manifestly obvious that there was an error of fact of an egregious nature which can be shown to have directly contributed to the conclusion arrived at by the panel.[25]The Application asserts that the panel could not reasonably come to a conclusion different from that of the police investigation, which did not result in the matter being submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. This suggestion ignores the fact that the panel has a responsibility to make up its own mind as to allegations (see R (on the application of Pearce and another) v Parole Board [2023] UKSC 13 ). The standard of proof the Board must apply is different from the criminal standard. The panel expressly took account of the police decision.[26]The Application correctly accepts that the test I must apply is to ask whether a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself on the law, could, on the evidence the panel heard, reach the conclusions that the panel did. Applying the principles set out above, I cannot find the panel's conclusions on the facts to be irrational.[27]As to procedural unfairness , a number of issues are raised. First, the Applicant had not been provided with the full CCTV material before the hearing, yet was closely questioned on its content.[28]The Application does not suggest that the Applicant's solicitor raised any issue of unfairness with regard to the CCTV evidence at the hearing. The Submissions he made in writing after the hearing are lengthy and detailed: they too contain no complaint as to the fairness of the proceedings, even when the Submissions address the issue of a discrepancy between the CCTV evidence and the Applicant's (dossier p289). If the Applicant needed more time to see the CCTV material, no doubt his solicitor would have asked for him to have that opportunity. It does not seem he did so. The Submissions expressly say that during the second and third hearings " CCTV footage and other documentary evidence [were] thoroughly explored ." There is no suggestion that the Applicant was disadvantaged in dealing with the CCTV evidence.[29]Complaint is made that V was not called and could not be cross-examined. The Parole Board is, of course, entitled to act on hearsay evidence: see Pearce Paragraph 13 and Rule 24(6) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 as amended 2024. I have read the record of V's interview with the police. It was perfectly proper for the panel not to seek to have V attend. There was no dispute that she had been approached by a man with a knife, or about what she said about his appearance, or that she did not pick out the Applicant at the identification procedure. All the points that the Applicant's solicitor wished to make about her evidence were available to him without her being called as a witness, and he made those points in his closing Submissions.[30]It is not procedurally unfair (or irrational) for the panel to take a different view of risk from that of the POM, or the COM, or both of them. Panels of the Parole Board are not obliged to adopt the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses. It is their responsibility to make their own risk assessments and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any risk management plan proposed. They must make up their own minds on the totality of the evidence that they hear, including any evidence from the Applicant. They would be failing in their duty to protect the public from serious harm (while also protecting the prisoner from unnecessary incarceration) if they failed to do just that. As was observed by the Divisional Court in DSD , they have the expertise to do it. It was not procedurally unfair, or irrational, for the panel, having made the findings of fact it did, to conclude that the Applicant did not meet the criteria for release.[31]Neither separately nor together do the matters raised amount to procedural irregularities or unfairness as discussed above. Decision[32]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Patrick Thomas KC 2 December 2025